3 ms·
True, S3 is not a CDN, but for a lot of use cases, serving directly from S3 is fine. Taking Vine for example, I picked a random vine from twitter (https://vine
by Icer5k 13y ago
True, S3 is not a CDN, but for a lot of use cases, serving directly from S3 is fine.
Taking Vine for example, I picked a random vine from twitter (https://vine.co/v/bE3YI365gxd https://vine.co/v/bE3YI365gxd) and a popular vine from twitter (https://vine.co/v/bEFFxdwjK9x https://vine.co/v/bEFFxdwjK9x). The popular video and thumbnails are served from a CDN, where the new one with no traffic is served directly from S3.
YouTube did the same thing in it's early days. CDNs are not required for all traffic, and blindly recommending them is a bad prescient. They're really great for content that is frequently accessed, but their value greatly decreases on long-tail content.
- obviouslygreen 13y agoWhen S3 first came out, people used it for this without considering its latency issues, and it was a disaster. S3 is not a CDN and shouldn't be used as one; this is the reason for CloudFront. While I can't compare CloudFront to other CDN's, I do know it works well for my clients that have been using it (and certainly better than serving directly from S3).